Harm is right that the MXO2 degrades the benchmark performance by 300% or so in the PPBM5.x disk test, which is not seen with the Intensity Pro card. But in the PPBM5 vs. PPBM 5.5 disk test themselves (nominally the same test), there is also a significant decrease in the disk test results when run on CS5.5 vs. CS5. The authors of the test (if I remember correctly) ascribe this to a difference in cache structure/design in Premiere Pro (I have no clue here!) which was changed by Adobe in going from CS5 to CS 5.5. So there is some significant acceleration for the disk test going on.

When the MXO2 software is installed, the MPEG2-DVD or H.264 test results don't change one bit, but the disk test numbers drop significantly, as if the caching is now totally gone. This is still true for the PPBM5.5 test run on Adobe Premiere CS6, by the way. I just don't know how seriously one should take the results of the disk test part in  PPBM5 or PPBM5.5. In real life, I don't see writing of a DV timeline to  hard disk slow down by 300%. "More investigation needed".

One undisputable issue with the MXO2 in CS6 is that the Matrox effects are no longer real-time, while analogous Adobe effects are realtime. Bummer.

I have both the Intensity Pro and the MXO2 on my system (they don't fight). I don't see much difference in the video, but the audio indeed is more troublesome with the Intensity Pro. And maybe my eyesight has gone too much, but I do need that output of the edited footage to a separate monitor too during the editing process. This  CTRL + tilde ~ just doesn't do it for me either.

Regards,

Burk

I may be a cynic, but I do just wonder if PPBM is not weighted to show Matrox systems in a poor light.  The frequently expressed animosity of one of the authors towards all things Matrox lends credence to this theory, in my view.

If the disk test was shorter, and the other tests (which are not affected by the presence of Matrox, it seems) were longer, a different picture would emerge.  This weighting is widely used to achieve the statistical result that is required.  the UK government cook the figures for the inflation rate in just this way.  This is nothing new, viz. Mark Twain's "three kinds of lie...".

The last set of Matrox drivers for CS5.5 eliminated many of the earlier problems, and stable drivers were released for CS6 within one month of the CS6 release - this is counter to the allegations about Matrox drivers which are still aired in this forum.

I certainly regret the loss of the real-time Matrox colour grading effects, but this is down to changes in Premiere, for which I cannot really blame Matrox.

Unfortunately the new Warp stabiliser is beset by too many problems to be usable.  It works only with a limited range of footage - essentially a static background with a an object moving in front of it.  A moving background, e.g. the sea, or wind-blown grass/trees produces some very strange effects - non-existent zoom in, jello on steroids, in particular.  The project file rapidly becomes bloated if the Warp is applied to many clips, leading to very slow saving and opening of projects.  Clips with the Warp applied are extremely slow to cut.  You are forced to use digital intermediates to prevent these problems.  This is a pity, because when it works the warp stabiliser gives superior results to my long-time favourite, Mercalli.

I don't think the tests are biased against Matrox, just that a system with a Matrox card treats DV differently to a system without a Matrox card.  To get a fast performance with Matrox you need to make Matrox Dv, not standard DV; the test makes standard DV in a standard Premiere timeline which does not work so well as using the right settings.

I still use the Matrox effects but mine still work in realtime despite being marked as red.  Hopefully Matrox can improve this in future versions.

Thanks Sebastian for getting back with the update on the MX 02 mini. I am currently considering that and should be able to get one by the end of the month.